JW Organization On Autopilot

by AlanF 82 Replies latest jw friends

  • Copernicus
    Copernicus

    You Know:

    If it means anything to you coming from me, I have to give credit where it’s due. When you drop the histrionics and write like this, you make the only biblically viable case for explaining the condition of the WTS today.

    As I’ve said before, several of the old timers that I knew had come to the same conclusions as yourself, and before I stopped attending meetings this was the only argument (in the scriptures you mention) I could personally conceive of to account for what I saw going on around me. “Watchtowerites” – we had coined the same term. These were the ones that would burble any nonsense that was found on the printed page of a WT as if fallen from the lips of God himself. They’ve put their trust solely in men, because they don’t have the intellect (or spirituality?) to consider any independent course of thought, no matter how obviously flawed the current, head in the sand teachings of the org are. The concept of salvation in the collective “ark,” (leaky as it is) as opposed to individually standing before their master is just to ingrained to overcome.

    Where I couldn’t make it work was the numbers. If 90% of the dubs go down the drain, and only the remaining ones were to be saved, it left me with the impression that Jehovah’s plan of recovering mankind had failed miserably, and the ransom was wasted. I know there are many ways of justifying this, but I got tired of playing that game.

    In any case, financial calamity or not, I expect to see major schisms in the Society in the near future. As Alan aptly noted, they are completely ossified intellectually, and cannot adapt to changing circumstances; therefore circumstances will overtake them. I honestly believe that they thought all along that Jehovah would intervene before this point in time, and bring Armageddon, just to save them the embarrassment of their failed illusions. It’s their own fault for killing the few “men of words” still left in their ranks. But I digress . . . what I wanted to say was that at least one of these schisms will likely develop around the ideas you’re presenting here. Ideas such as yours are gaining some ground amongst the disgusted (but still loyal).

    Time will tell. What does it all mean anyhow?

    And Alan, while I usually enjoy your posts, and I appreciate the effort put into them – in this case, who cares if the old Judge was a confirmed drunk or not? Or if he had a mistress? Hasn’t this been played out? Is it relevant? I did recognize though your connecting the current mentality to the years of abuse suffered under his inebriated hand. Yes, as I think back on his many books that I read (and enjoyed at the time) I see now the haze of alcohol that gave rise to his flights of fancy. The whole thing is just so damn pathetic.

  • Farkel
    Farkel

    Copernicus,

    : in this case, who cares if the old Judge was a confirmed drunk or not? Or if he had a mistress? Hasn’t this been played out? Is it relevant?

    That depends upon what you mean by "relevant." Professor Ed Gruss has evidence that the building of the Beth Sarim mansion was sanctioned solely to get the drunken Judge out of Brooklyn before he could do more harm there. That was 1929. The Judge wrote books for another 12 years. In fact he wrote MOST of his books during that period. It was the Judge who stated that dubs came out of "Babylonish Captivity" in 1919 and were fully approved by Jehovah to represent Him after that time. If Jehovah who knows and sees everything, Himself approved the de facto leader of His one true religion who was a drunk and most probably an adulterer, then I DO think that is relevant.

    I think dubs should know the caliber of people who formed their history and shaped it to the extent that it stands today. Da Judge being an alcoholic may be old hat to you, but it might be brand new news to recent lurkers. Should any of those lurkers request evidence, they will get it.

    Farkel

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    Hi Copernicus:

    I think that whether Rutherford was a drunk and adulterer or not is very relevant to the issue of whether the JW organization is what Rutherford claimed -- God's unique, visible, earthly organization. The Society itself agrees in principle, because they've written plenty of words condemning every other religion for the sins of the leaders, including drunkenness and adultery. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, no? On a more objective note, I think we would all agree that religions like the Mormons are screwy because of their history, and in particular the history of their screwy leaders like the Mormons' Joseph Smith. Similarly, the screwy and immoral Rutherford put his stamp solidly on the organization that he created from the Bible Students -- Jehovah's witnesses.

    I'm glad you noticed my connecting the Judge's mentality with present WTS mentality. There is a direct link via the men who served Rutherford and who became JW leaders, leaders who are now dying out. A willingness to accept gross wrongdoing by a man merely because he claims to be God's exclusive "channel", yet unwillingness to accept the slightest deviation from the party line by the rank and file, bespeaks gross hypocrisy and a showing of double standards, both of which are condemned by everyone who has moral character and by the Bible itself. So any way you look at it, Rutherford's conduct -- and more importantly, the way his underlings reacted to it -- speaks volumes about the moral character of the men who have led the Society for more than 80 years. One must wonder how self-proclaimed Christians can so easily accept this lunacy.

    As for Rutherford's books, it has been suggested with good reason that Fred Franz actually was a or the ghostwriter for Rutherford from roughly 1925 onward. Rutherford would have suggested themes and perhaps written a lot of the basics, but Franz put it into final form. Think about how that would have affected Franz, who later became the de facto "head theologian" of the Society for more than 40 years.

    AlanF

  • Fredhall
    Fredhall

    AlanF,

    Rutherford had nothing to hide. If Moyle ask Van Amburgh, Wise, and the Sullivans that Rutherford gave them booze they would said "yes." Rutherford didn't need no cronies to defend him at the Board of Directors meeting. Rutherford defend himself and it was to bad that Moyle couldn't.

    Regarding American Prohibition laws, it suck. If I was there in Rutherford's time, I would be glad to help the brothers smuggle liquor from Canada to USA. There is nothing wrong in God's eyes of doing it. And about Rutherford having exclusive use of various houses, there were others having exclusive use of the same houses that Rutherford live in. So, they must own them too. Right?

  • Copernicus
    Copernicus
    I think dubs should know the caliber of people who formed their history and shaped it to the extent that it stands today. Da Judge being an alcoholic may be old hat to you, but it might be brand new news to recent lurkers.

    Farkle – point taken. Years ago I was told stories by one old timer about how da judge would down a water glass full of whiskey (to get lubricated) before his radio broadcasts. At the time we thought it was funny. It’s not so funny now.

    On a more objective note, I think we would all agree that religions like the Mormons are screwy because of their history, and in particular the history of their screwy leaders like the Mormons' Joseph Smith. Similarly, the screwy and immoral Rutherford put his stamp solidly on the organization that he created from the Bible Students -- Jehovah's witnesses.
    This touched home for me Alan, as I live in Mormon country. Very strange bunch who make the dub’s look sane by comparison. Again – point taken. I guess I was feeling a little down about the whole mess last night. I know we all bought in at one time, and to see it exposed like this is so. . . words fail me.
  • Mishnah
    Mishnah

    There should be a law against typing while intoxicated. Then at least you'd have about an hour a day to type your junk.

    Mr. AlanF, care to provide some facts for your junk? On what factual basis do you claim Rutherford was an adulterer?

    Mishnah

  • Mishnah
    Mishnah

    Larc, you must be joking. You have evidence but you won't offer it? Get outa here! How about a name? You can at least produce that right? Then we can trace this person's history to Bethel, Rutherford, and so on. Well? Are you going to cough of the evidence or go the way of AlanF?

    Mishnah

  • Copernicus
    Copernicus

    Well Alan, here’s your chance, ha, ha. It’s amazing to me how you anticipated the existence of folks like Mis-mash. I wouldn’t have thought it possible. Let him/her have it. . .

    The power of icons (even drunks such as the judge) to inspire others to ignorantly rise to their defense is simply astonishing.

  • Farkel
    Farkel

    FredHall,

    : I would be glad to help the brothers smuggle liquor from Canada to USA. There is nothing wrong in God's eyes of doing it.

    Are you calling Paul a liar? Romans 13:7

    Are you calling Jesus a liar? Mark 12:17

    Are you calling the Watchtower Religious Printing Corporation a liar? They've often said that Christians are required to obey the law where it does not conflict with God's laws. Other than the exception of taking a sip of wine at the Memorial, Rutherford disobeyed the very words he compelled upon his own followers.

    Copernicus,

    : This touched home for me Alan, as I live in Mormon country. Very strange bunch who make the dub’s look sane by comparison.

    Really? I was born and raised in the Salt Lake City area. It doesn't get more Mormon than that. And yes, they are a weird bunch alright!

    Mishnah,

    : There should be a law against typing while intoxicated. Then at least you'd have about an hour a day to type your junk.

    I'm always impressed with those who use solid facts and evidence to rebut an argument and who can prove what they say. I'm also impressed with those who eschew the temptation to bring in a red herring, but are big enough to step up to the plate and actually deal with the issues being presented.

    That's why I'm not the least bit impressed with you.

    Farkel

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    Fredhall, it's obvious from your remarks that you're not a Christian and you care nothing about Christianity. You're a troll.

    Copernicus, you're right about idiots showing up at the right time. Now I'll deal with the idiot.

    Mishnah, it's clear from this and other posts that you're an idiot. But I'll humor you anyway -- not to appease you but to prove to onlookers that my words have substance.

    Some years ago at a religious meeting I met a man whose father had been a Bible Student since Russell's day. The man told me the following: In the late 1920s the man's father and his wife were part of a group traveling around the U.S. with Rutherford. This couple were Bible Students from Buffalo, New York. Rutherford was in the habit of bringing his cook along on these tours. Some of the women in the group had the responsibility of caring for the rooms that Rutherford and his entourage stayed in, and the father's wife was one of them. One morning, the man's wife was cleaning Rutherford's room, and while she was making the bed she found a woman's hairpin in the bed. Rutherford had arranged the rooms so that his cook stayed in the room next door, and there was a private doorway joining the rooms. Obviously, Rutherford had had a woman in bed with him, and because of other clues, this cleaning woman put two and two together and realized that Rutherford was screwing his cook. When she and her husband and others in the entourage confronted Rutherford about this evidence, he did not deny it, but proceeded to lambast them. Soon after that, a large group of Bible Students in Buffalo left and formed their own group after learning of Rutherford's adulterous behavior. The man who told me this story grew up as part of that group. He has been in contact with certain researchers who will be publishing this and much more information in the next couple of years.

    I've had confirmation of this story from several other sources over the years. Rutherford's cook was also guilty of adultery, and her husband eventually divorced her. He actually brough a lawsuit against Rutherford for breaking up his marriage.

    Rutherford was estranged from his wife Mary since roughly 1920. She was a semi-invalid, and eventually came to live, I believe, in San Diego, not far from Beth Sarim, along with their son Malcolm. Rutherford was also estranged from his son. Neither Mary nor Malcolm had anything to do with the Judge's religion after the 1920s. Malcolm refused to grant interviews about his father even up to his death in the late 1980s.

    AlanF

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit